Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
xPapa_Smurfx

Flak is now murderous, there is a naval helm command you should learn WG

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
294 posts
4,609 battles

The command is "meet her" and it means to slow the rate of turn and steady up on a course without fishtailing.  "Meet her" tells the helmsman to be graceful with rudder corrections, unlike what you just did with the CV rework.  It's good to use "Meet Her" after you give a large rudder correction without a new course, which means you've probably just turned away from danger and now you have a good idea of where you want to go safely.

I got butchered by a Haida all alone tonight.  Completely wrecked my attack squadron all by itself in seconds.  AA needs to be toned down a bit.  Take the FLAK dial and turn it down from 11 to 7 or 8.  I'm with the people that have already said that one correction to flak was probably the right move.

I'll say this, the CV rework finally has ships sticking together in groups, LOL!  CV planes can't get near them.  I was deplaned almost the whole night.  As soon as I hit the attack button, a giant wall of flak bursts come up and half my squadron vaporizes.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,732
[ERN]
[ERN]
Modder, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
10,387 posts
4,550 battles

your welcome

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
663 posts
5,656 battles
14 minutes ago, MajorRenegade said:

your welcome

 

This is entirely outdated as the majority of flak damage has moved from bursts to damage over time.

You can dodge every flak cloud on the way in and still lose every plane because a BB is pumping out 1.1k constant DPS against 2k hp planes.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
294 posts
4,609 battles
1 minute ago, The_Painted_Target said:

This is entirely outdated as the majority of flak damage has moved from bursts to damage over time.

You can dodge every flak cloud on the way in and still lose every plane because a BB is pumping out 1.1k constant DPS against 2k hp planes.

This ^  but the flak clouds still hurt.  Perhaps tone down the continuous damage and make the flak clouds less murderous, but still make the appear right in front of you when you hit the attack button.  That happened all night tonight.  As soon as I hit LMB, giant walls of flak bursts would come up right in front of me and there was no way to dodge.  That's cool and exciting, but it hurts too much now.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[CTHLU]
Members
13 posts

It's hilarious how idiotic players are, i managed to citadel x2 a Salem with bombers. He used 0 evasive action, didn't even attempt to turn and got hit for 17k, i in return lost every plane in that squadron before i could even try and turn around, and then of course he rages about how CV's are OP.  Because a perfect strike when you don't even try and evade is overpowered, right? How much do BB's do to broadside cruisers? So many players with 0 logic only CV hate, but they have WG's ear.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,665
[PSP]
Members
8,056 posts
2 minutes ago, Gunnorra said:

It's hilarious how idiotic players are, i managed to citadel x2 a Salem with bombers. He used 0 evasive action, didn't even attempt to turn and got hit for 17k, i in return lost every plane in that squadron before i could even try and turn around, and then of course he rages about how CV's are OP.  Because a perfect strike when you don't even try and evade is overpowered, right? How much do BB's do to broadside cruisers? So many players with 0 logic only CV hate, but they have WG's ear.....

Care to post a replay? It's hard to know if you are telling the truth when you hide your stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,816
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,526 posts
10,240 battles

I think they may have over did the flak DOT change a bit. However, what I feel needs to be adjusted most is how planes interact with higher and lower tier AA which is a problem going back to alpha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
376
[S0L0]
Members
973 posts
5,189 battles
9 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

I think they may have over did the flak DOT change a bit. However, what I feel needs to be adjusted most is how planes interact with higher and lower tier AA which is a problem going back to alpha.

We know the game engine will allow tier based modifiers in combat (Looking at you, old Dog Fighting Expert), so it would seem the system is already in place. Why not apply it to ship based AA? Give ships a 15% buff when dealing with aircraft from a higher tier ship, but they take a 15% penalty when firing at lower tier planes. Doesn't make any sense in the real world, but it would help with balance, and be pretty transparent on the user level.

 

I can't see how it would be any harder to implement or more unbalanced than the mess we currently have. Even primarily playing surface ships, I have to say the hotfixed AA is way too strong. Last night I saw a strike coming my way and totally ignored it, because those torpedo planes were no threat to my Musashi. I say again, a MUSASHI has enough AA to utterly ignore strike planes... Not healthy for anyone.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117
[YORHA]
Members
3,808 posts
6,619 battles

The question is how do you suppose WG is going to find the happy medium?  Do you think they have a "BALANCE" button and all of the stats will even out.

0.8.0 set the scales very heavily in one direction.  0.8.0.1 has set them almost as far over to the other side.  If there is another hotfix, or in the next patch, then it will move them back... not to the middle but probably almost as far back the other way.  And so on and so on and so on until a relative position of balance is achieved.  WGs data can only tell them something is out of whack.  It cannot tell them where the exact middle is so it is a case of trial and error until they get it right.

Balance is a process, not an event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,079 posts
8,154 battles
4 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

0.8.0 set the scales very heavily in one direction.  0.8.0.1 has set them almost as far over to the other side.  If there is another hotfix, or in the next patch, then it will move them back... not to the middle but probably almost as far back the other way.  And so on and so on and so on until a relative position of balance is achieved.  WGs data can only tell them something is out of whack.  It cannot tell them where the exact middle is so it is a case of trial and error until they get it right.

Balance is a process, not an event.

Your point may stand for T10 CVs, but there is no “almost” when it comes to T8 CVs in T10 games.  Hotfix nerfed those ships into the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
197
[-GDP-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,596 posts
1,105 battles

CV haters are loving the AA buff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[WOLF2]
Members
1,174 posts
8,273 battles
35 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

The question is how do you suppose WG is going to find the happy medium?  Do you think they have a "BALANCE" button and all of the stats will even out.

0.8.0 set the scales very heavily in one direction.  0.8.0.1 has set them almost as far over to the other side.  If there is another hotfix, or in the next patch, then it will move them back... not to the middle but probably almost as far back the other way.  And so on and so on and so on until a relative position of balance is achieved.  WGs data can only tell them something is out of whack.  It cannot tell them where the exact middle is so it is a case of trial and error until they get it right.

Balance is a process, not an event.

I guess if the devs work in a vacuum then a pure data approach would be understood.

But in today's digital world?   They're good with using multiple outlets to deliver information to us (youtube, FB, twitter, forums, blogs).   Why wouldn't there be the expectation that they get a real-time temperature?    Guess they're too potato to take a hybrid approach.    Set the course.   Collect the real data (population, damage/XP averages, comparison to pre 8.0, etc.).   But also collect the response your customers are giving you.    Granted, there will always be some grumbling about any change.      But by having your ears open, it was obvious within a few days that ONE SHIP was causing nothing but grief.   ONE SHIP was being exploited to no end, and even tailored for low-skill torp spamming.

Then look across the spectrum of your social media platforms to see if any of your other CVs are impacted.    Are your customers complaining about any other CV tier?   Are they complaining about any other CV than THAT ONE SHIP?

I'm not a rocket scientist, nor developer, but you'd have to be the biggest potato not to recognize THAT ONE SHIP was causing all of the problem, and torpedoing your rework.      Rather than a surgical strike to pull the T10s and tweak those a bit more, they sledgehammer the entire carrier class, and switch to the other extreme.

Balance by the way of sledgehammer.

But, if they need to collect pure data and live in their vacuum, so be it.   It will certainly be funny to imagine what they'll say to management when after one week, CV population plummets.

Edited by DiddleDum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117
[YORHA]
Members
3,808 posts
6,619 battles
25 minutes ago, DiddleDum said:

I guess if the devs work in a vacuum then a pure data approach would be understood.

But in today's digital world?   They're good with using multiple outlets to deliver information to us (youtube, FB, twitter, forums, blogs).   Why wouldn't there be the expectation that they get a real-time temperature?    Guess they're too potato to take a hybrid approach.    Set the course.   Collect the real data (population, damage/XP averages, comparison to pre 8.0, etc.).   But also collect the response your customers are giving you.    Granted, there will always be some grumbling about any change.      But by having your ears open, it was obvious within a few days that ONE SHIP was causing nothing but grief.   ONE SHIP was being exploited to no end, and even tailored for low-skill torp spamming.

Then look across the spectrum of your social media platforms to see if any of your other CVs are impacted.    Are your customers complaining about any other CV tier?   Are they complaining about any other CV than THAT ONE SHIP?

I'm not a rocket scientist, nor developer, but you'd have to be the biggest potato not to recognize THAT ONE SHIP was causing all of the problem, and torpedoing your rework.      Rather than a surgical strike to pull the T10s and tweak those a bit more, they sledgehammer the entire carrier class, and switch to the other extreme.

Balance by the way of sledgehammer.

But, if they need to collect pure data and live in their vacuum, so be it.   It will certainly be funny to imagine what they'll say to management when after one week, CV population plummets.

 

Lots of typing there.  Maybe more reading might be in order?  Where did I say they relied on data alone?

There is plenty of evidence around that they do look at player reaction and have direct involvement by playing the game themselves and coming to the same conclusions as some of the players f you bother to look for it.

None of which changes the fact there is no "BALANCE" button they can push to fix everyone's grievances, because some of them are simply not valid.  Plus an expectation that they are going to fix everything perfectly for all ships on all tiers in ONE WEEK might be a little unrealistic. 

 

 

 

Edited by JCC45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[P2W]
Members
132 posts
8,277 battles

While I agree that there is going to be something of a pendulum effect to doing any sort of balance, it is not as though this is just a left/right spectrum. There are many different variables, some of which influence each other, so it may take an inordinate number of iterations to balance the game by just throwing things at the wall to see if one of them works. As best I can tell, we have the following knobs to be turned:

  • How many flak bursts appear from a given ship
  • How much damage each burst does
  • How much guaranteed damage does the ship deal to planes in the aura
  • What is the minimum and maximum range for flak
  • What is the minimum and maximum range for continuous damage aura
  • How fast are the planes (combines with ranges to determine how long the plane faces actual AA damage)
  • How many planes attack in a given pass
  • How many passes are possible from a single squadron
  • How much damage does a given weapon deal
  • How do the weapon types interact with armor
  • What are the odds of a fire or flood for each strike
  • How long do fires and/or floods last and what percentage of damage do they deal
  • How accurate are the weapons relative to the aiming indicator
  • How much does turning the plane increase the dispersion of the attack
  • What is the minimum and maximum range of each of the airplane weapon types
  • How much damage does a plane take before going down
  • How long does it take for planes to return to the carrier
  • How long does it take for a returned plane to be ready for another attack
  • What are the initial and maximum numbers of planes for each type
  • How fast are destroyed planes replaced
  • What is the match-making spread, and how does that affect the range of values for all of the above for ships in a given game

And so on. If your only plan is to try out semi-random combination of values in each hot-fix, it's going to take forever to settle on something reasonable. I wish them luck in making this work, but it seems unlikely based on the evidence so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117
[YORHA]
Members
3,808 posts
6,619 battles
1 minute ago, KaptainNemo_1 said:

While I agree that there is going to be something of a pendulum effect to doing any sort of balance, it is not as though this is just a left/right spectrum. There are many different variables, some of which influence each other, so it may take an inordinate number of iterations to balance the game by just throwing things at the wall to see if one of them works. As best I can tell, we have the following knobs to be turned:

  • How many flak bursts appear from a given ship
  • How much damage each burst does
  • How much guaranteed damage does the ship deal to planes in the aura
  • What is the minimum and maximum range for flak
  • What is the minimum and maximum range for continuous damage aura
  • How fast are the planes (combines with ranges to determine how long the plane faces actual AA damage)
  • How many planes attack in a given pass
  • How many passes are possible from a single squadron
  • How much damage does a given weapon deal
  • How do the weapon types interact with armor
  • What are the odds of a fire or flood for each strike
  • How long do fires and/or floods last and what percentage of damage do they deal
  • How accurate are the weapons relative to the aiming indicator
  • How much does turning the plane increase the dispersion of the attack
  • What is the minimum and maximum range of each of the airplane weapon types
  • How much damage does a plane take before going down
  • How long does it take for planes to return to the carrier
  • How long does it take for a returned plane to be ready for another attack
  • What are the initial and maximum numbers of planes for each type
  • How fast are destroyed planes replaced
  • What is the match-making spread, and how does that affect the range of values for all of the above for ships in a given game

And so on. If your only plan is to try out semi-random combination of values in each hot-fix, it's going to take forever to settle on something reasonable. I wish them luck in making this work, but it seems unlikely based on the evidence so far.

It 's a massive change to almost every aspect and it's only been one week.  

 

One week.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[WOLF2]
Members
1,174 posts
8,273 battles
2 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

 

Lots of typing there.  Maybe more reading might be in order?  Where did I say they relied on data alone?

There is plenty of evidence around that they do look at player reaction and have direct involvement by playing the game themselves and coming to the same conclusions as some of the players f you bother to look for it.

None of which changes the fact there is no "BALANCE" button they can push to fix everyone's grievances, because some of the are simply not valid.  Plus an expectation that they are going to fix everything perfectly for all ships on all tiers in ONE WEEK might be a little unrealistic. 

 

 

 

And I wasn't disputing your point - no need for a defensive posture.

What you said is exactly how WG will do their fixes - one extreme, to the other extreme, and then to the opposite but slightly less extreme, and then back again.

What I was saying was that I thought it was a pretty potato way to approach things.     Yes, you use your data.   However, the outcries on the forums, reddit, youtube all focused on a single point of failure.

And rather than focusing on that single point of failure, they hacked the entire program and flipped it to extremes.

I don't have any particular insight to their development process, but from just playing, and seeing how they hot-fixed things, it's pretty apparent they didn't consider the actual cause of all the grief.   Misinterpretation?   Lack of understanding?

Dunno.    Seems akin to using a bazooka as a fly-swatter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[P2W]
Members
132 posts
8,277 battles
1 minute ago, JCC45 said:

It 's a massive change to almost every aspect and it's only been one week.  

One week.

Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

It is a massive change to almost everything. I'm not commenting on the speed at which they are making changes, but rather the size of the task they've set themselves. It seems to me that it would have been better to start off with a smaller change (such as introducing the new CV play in special operations as they did with subs), where it would be OK to have perhaps as few as 2 or 3 different carrier types, fighting against a small number of ship types, in more constrained operations. This less wide-open environment would have reduced the number of variables and combinations that you have to hash out at the same time. For example, if you didn't have to deal with different tiers of ships in the same game you'd have more reliable data coming in about how each CV and surface ship is doing.

I played essentially none of the old CVs past T5 because I couldn't get the whole strafe while also doing manual drops thing figured out. I also found that when you did have a CV in the game it frequently decided the outcome of the match based on which player was better than the other. So, I'm not in any way an unrestrained fan of the old system, but it seems that it isn't too hard to predict that if you make a massive rework to a mature game you run the risk of making everybody unhappy. Doing whatever you can to keep the level of discontent at a minimum would seem like an important thing to think about before breaking everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,665
[PSP]
Members
8,056 posts
Just now, DiddleDum said:

Dunno.    Seems akin to using a bazooka as a fly-swatter.

I remember firing those anti-tank rockets in the Army. Who knows, I might have killed a fly or two. I shot a spider once with my .45. In my defense, it was a really big spider.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[P2W]
Members
132 posts
8,277 battles
13 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I remember firing those anti-tank rockets in the Army. Who knows, I might have killed a fly or two. I shot a spider once with my .45. In my defense, it was a really big spider.

It's only a really big spider if the .45 didn't kill it. :Smile_izmena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
222
[90THD]
[90THD]
Members
2,904 posts
2,242 battles
Quote

Dear Captains,

We've encountered two issues with anti-air defense mechanics after the 0.8.0.1 hotfix:

  • Large damage spikes from AA explosions in tier VIII and above (this is a bug, the damage should increase proportionally with tier);
  • Continuous DPS on several ships/tiers needs further adjusting (mostly toning down slightly);

We're already working on resolving both issues, but to avoid any new mistakes, we will be spending a couple of days double-checking everything and preparing a small update.

We plan to release this hotfix early next week..

We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience.

-The World of Warships Team

400% jump in AA when going from T7 to T8 is a confirmed BUG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117
[YORHA]
Members
3,808 posts
6,619 battles
6 minutes ago, DiddleDum said:

And I wasn't disputing your point - no need for a defensive posture.

What you said is exactly how WG will do their fixes - one extreme, to the other extreme, and then to the opposite but slightly less extreme, and then back again.

What I was saying was that I thought it was a pretty potato way to approach things.     Yes, you use your data.   However, the outcries on the forums, reddit, youtube all focused on a single point of failure.

And rather than focusing on that single point of failure, they hacked the entire program and flipped it to extremes.

I don't have any particular insight to their development process, but from just playing, and seeing how they hot-fixed things, it's pretty apparent they didn't consider the actual cause of all the grief.   Misinterpretation?   Lack of understanding?

Dunno.    Seems akin to using a bazooka as a fly-swatter.

 

 

I wasn't being defensive I was just pointing out that your interpretation of what I actually said  was a little off base.

I, on the other hand, do have some experience in software development and bug squashing/game balancing going back to Falcon 4.0 (I still have nightmares about that one) through Silent Hunter 2 through 4, Destroyer Command and several others.

The process is extremely complex, laborious and soul destroying.  If you take a macro approach (ie fixing one small aspect at a time) the chances are much better that you will screw up a number of other interrelated things. We tried that with Falcon 4.0 and it took a year to try to fix it and eventually drove the company that developed it out of the business.  It also finished Gilman Louie, one of the most brilliant game developers ever, driving him out of the business entirely. It takes 100 times longer. 

The accepted approach is to institute global changes that, to a degree, fix the over all problem(s) (hopefully without totally breaking the game) and then go back and tweak the smaller aspects.  This appears to be what WG is doing.

The problem is that  some players have a lot of investment in some of the smaller aspects (in this case non tier X CVs) and they feel like they have been abandoned.  I can assure you, from my experience, that they haven't.  It is just going to take a little while for WG to get to everything that needs looking at.  That WG got a hotfix out in less than a week that started to solve some of the most egregious problems I think is commendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,117
[YORHA]
Members
3,808 posts
6,619 battles
3 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

400% jump in AA when going from T7 to T8 is a confirmed BUG

And there you go.  Timing was PERFECT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×